Constitutional Court Rules Statute of Limitations Clause Constitutional in Murder-Arson Case

(Central News Agency, Taipei, June 5) A woman surnamed Chen, convicted of murder and arson and sentenced to 14 years and 6 months in prison, filed a constitutional petition arguing that the statute of limitations provisions in the Criminal Code Enforcement Act of the Republic of China were unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court today issued Judgment No. 5 of 2025 (115-nian-xian-pan-di-5-hao), declaring the relevant provisions constitutional.

Grand Justices Tsai Tsung-chen, Yang Hui-chin, and Chu Fu-mei continued to refuse participation in the deliberation. The judgment was rendered by Grand Justices Hsieh Ming-yang, Lyu Tai-lang, Tsai Tsai-chen, Chen Chung-wu, and Yu Po-hsiang, who participated in the deliberation.

Article 8-2 of the Criminal Code Enforcement Act stipulates that for cases where the statute of limitations had already begun but not yet expired before the enforcement of the proviso to Article 80, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Code, as amended on May 10, 2019, the amended provisions shall apply.

In 1998, a teenage girl was tortured, murdered, and then cremated. Her identity could not be confirmed. Prosecutors and police collected her DNA, filed it, and buried her as an unidentified body. It was not until 2019 that a secret witness came forward. Police then located the victim's family, matched the DNA, identified the victim, and reopened the investigation, identifying the woman surnamed Chen and others as suspects. Chen's sentence of 14 years and 6 months was finalized in 2022.

Under the Criminal Code in effect at the time of the crime, the statute of limitations for murder was 20 years, which was set to expire on July 17, 2019. However, before this date, the relevant law was amended to add a proviso stating that in cases resulting in death, the statute of limitations does not apply. The Criminal Code Enforcement Act was also amended to adopt the principle of applying the new law, no longer applying the most favorable provision for the defendant. Consequently, Chen's case was subject to the new law and was not bound by the statute of limitations.

Chen argued that the Taiwan High Court's judgment and the applied provisions of the Criminal Code Enforcement Act violated the constitutional principles of equality, personal freedom, protection of legitimate expectations, non-retroactivity of laws, and proportionality. She petitioned the Constitutional Court for a review of the legal norms and the court judgment.

According to the Constitutional Court's judgment, Article 8-2 of the Criminal Code Enforcement Act does not violate the principle of non-retroactivity of laws nor the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. Chen's petition for constitutional review of the court judgment was dismissed. (Editor: Li Mingzong) 1150605